A proper study collects and analyzes data, and reaches a conclusion based on the
data. Regenerus, on the other hand, gives the very real impression that he
decides on his conclusion and then tries to select data to support his
'conclusion'. I have no problem understanding why his work is not
deemed credible.

"The state of Utah recently filed a letter distancing itself from the study
in defending its statewide ban on same-sex marriage. The state cited a recent
federal district court decision dismissing Regnerus’ views as 'not
worthy of serious consideration.'”

The State of Utah did
more than just distance itself from the Regnerus study, it expunged all
references to the study that were included in Utah's original appellate
brief. The State of Utah also admitted to the 10th Circuit that the Regnerus
study does *not* establish the fact for which Utah had cited the study; namely,
that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior
to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements. By redacting this study
from its argument, the State of Utah conceeded that there is no evidence to show
that homosexual couples are inferior to heterosexual couples in raising
children.

Re: Furry 1993- Actually his work was deemed credible by the peers who reviewed
his paper and recommended that it be published. And considering the fact that it
hasn't ever been retracted, it is still considered credible.

Here is the issue with the Regenerus study: What he found was that children
who reported to have a parent who had had a same-sex relationship had poorer
outcomes. What his study did not address is whether children in stable same-sex
relationships have poorer outcomes. This was because he found very few same-sex
relationships that were stable, so his numbers simply couldn't reach
significance. This isn't because the study was poor, but because he just
didn't find that many stable same-sex households.

The problem
with all the other studies on this is that they aren't credible because the
surveys they are based on have not been random and/or large enough to be
meaningful. Regenerus's study was both large and random.

@HoldCompletely agree, the problem with the study is the lack of proper
context when used by others (not sure how much Regnerus does it himself) when
referencing it. Then there's the side-issue of whether averages should be
used to generalize/stereotype entire populations when it comes to the policy
debate it's brought up in.

Regnerus failed to account for the fact that over half of the
study participants never lived in a same-sex household at all, some of them
lived in one for only brief periods, and nearly all of the participants were the
offspring of failed heterosexual marriages. Just two of the participants met
the criteria it is claimed he was studying - children raised throughout their
childhood by parents in a same-sex relationship - and measures of these kids
came out comparable to those of children raised by stable heterosexual
parents.

So it is misleading to say that Regnerus "found...that
children who reported to have a parent who had had a same-sex relationship had
poorer outcomes" because this isn't what he in fact was studying. It
is also misleading to say that "he found very few same-sex relationships
that were stable" because he didn’t go looking for stable same-sex
relationships. He instead seems to have gone looking for confirmation of his
belief that gay parenting leads to poor child outcomes. Despite his efforts,
all that he actually found was the impact of divorce.

Regnerus couldn't find a stable same-sex household
because he didn't look very hard. Your comment indicates that you
haven't looked very hard either. I can name a dozen stable same-sex
households off the top of my head (mine being just one of them).

As
for his "peers" who reviewed the study, they were just more of his
anti-same-sex fellows; even his University has disavowed the study. The
original publication in which it was published disavowed the study.

Regnerus is a crank and anyone who thinks his work has any validity at all is
simply ignoring the facts.

The common flaw of the Regnerus NFSS study was the failure to account for the
fact that many of the subjects who were raised in same-sex households
experienced prior incidents of family instability (e.g., divorce or separation)
or were initially placed in the foster care system. Regnerus acknowledged that
poor school performance could result from a child’s exposure to divorce or
parental separation. Regnerus’s NFSS study also suffered from another
defect in that it failed to measure the adult outcomes of children who were
actually raised in same-sex households. Regnerus acknowledged that “any
suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the
parent” and that “[t]he exact source of group differences” are
unknown.

The Michigan Court found Regnerus’s testimony
ENTIRELY unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence
adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily
concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential
that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of
public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for
society.”

Once again, Regnerus shows that he has no idea what "causality" is. If
he is positing that religion "causes" heterosexuality, he is once again
alone in his field.

A more likely "cause" of his observations
is that those non-heterosexuals who find that no matter how hard they pray to be
made "normal," no matter how sincerely they believe, after seeing
absolutely no results, come to question the condemnatory teachings of their
churches, and leave.

Put in more scientific language, his subjects
are self-selecting religion, based on their sexuality.

Meanwhile,
everyone should know that there are churches who accept gays and lesbians as
equal children of God, with the same spiritual needs and gifts, and are prepared
to treat them with the same dignity, love and celebration they afford all
people.

In his next study, Regnerus will measure how much Jello he
can make stick to the wall, and what it means.

"About 50 percent of younger evangelicals had premarital sex with their
spouse, compared to 10 percent of Mormons, his study suggests. Mormons are the
least likely religious group to be in a sexually inactive marriage, the research
suggests." Speaks for itself!

Another Deseret News article calling the rising number of single people a
"disaster."How can you tell gay people they can't marry then
at the same time complain about the rising number of single people?I'm a faithul, single, celibate Mormon who experiences same-sex
attraction. Can you see how this kind of talk could be hurtful to me? No
matter what I do--stay single, find a partner--people like Regnerus will regard
me as contributing to the destruction of society.

@ThidBarker: Neither you nor Regnerus are accounting for a person's age at
marriage. Yes, if you marry young there's a chance you might not have had
sex before marriage. But, people are marrying later and later these days, in
part because they know that to afford themselves, their spouse, and their
children a better life, they need to have earning power. So, upwardly-mobile
people are getting more education and trying to establish a career before
considering themselves in a financial position to marry.

For those
who are getting married later, say age 28 and up, virginity is either difficult
to maintain, or if maintained would raise questions as to whether there was
something wrong with you.

Virginity at age 18 is sweet. At age 35
it's a little worrisome. On average, Mormons marry younger than most. In
America, I think only Orthodox and Hasidic Jews marry younger.

Tiago. Thank you for your comments. Too many people are too eager to judge
persons who experience same sex attraction and for whatever it means to you, I
admire your courage. I have things in my life that I constantly struggle with
too but I think yours are more difficult than mine. I have to believe life in
the short term is not fair but in the long run, it will be, for all of us. I
think my "cross" to bear, as irritating as it is, is easier than yours.
God bless you!

Your first comment to Tiago commends him for remaining
celibate; you second comment, to Quaker, indicates how much you enjoy your
marriage (and the physical relationship right along with it). Why would you
deny Tiago the same joy you enjoy?

SSM is NOT a burden to bear. It
is NOT a cross to carry. It is NOT something to be afraid of or hide away. It
IS as natural to an LGBT person as opposite sex attraction is to a heterosexual
person.

After years of "praying the gay away" with no
success, the only conclusons were (1) god doesn't exist, (2) if he exists,
he doesn't care, (3) churches are lying to us. All 3 conclusions = best to
leave religion behind.

RE: A Quaker,For those who are getting married later, say age 28 and up,
virginity is either difficult to maintain, or if maintained would raise
questions as to whether there was something wrong with you?

Now
regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain
from sexual relations. But because there is so much sexual immorality, each Man
should have his own wife, and each Woman should have her own
husband.”(1Cor 7 1-2).

RE: Mountanman I am just glad that
Mormons are the least likely religion to be in a sexually inactive marriage!
Currently,Prior to the 1890 Manifesto. Polygamy was openly practiced in
Utah.“An elder must live a blameless life. He must be faithful
to his *wife and his children must be believers who don’t have a
reputation for being wild or rebellious.” (Titus 1:6 NLT)*Greek, must be
the husband of one wife

As Regnerus has been discredited in both academia and the courts, seeing
anything spoken or written by this person is clearly an act of media
disinformation. He is not a creditable source of information.

Going public with your studies, and disseminating your findings before they
are published is also an "ethical" no-no. His study has not been peer
reviewed. No one knows if what he found is true, if his methods are correct and
if his conclusions hold water. To cite his proposed study in advance is also an
act of media disinformation.

Is this a newspaper or a
political/religious operation? Can any crank dummy up a study and get it read
into the public record as truth simply because it confirms the dominant bias of
its readers? What next...a study that claims conservative religionists have
better dental hygiene and escape the agony of ingrown toenails?

"About 50 percent of younger evangelicals had premarital sex with their
spouse, compared to 10 percent of Mormons, his study suggests."

Given that a number of legitimate studies have placed Evangelicals having
premarital sex at more than 90% (with Mormons not that far behind), a more
likely conclusion would be that Evangelicals and Mormons lie about premarital
sex at a higher rate than do people who do not belong to conservative religions.
Almost 15 percent of Utah's babies are born to unmarried mothers. If you
check the percent of babies born to moms married less than nine months,
it's going to up that percentage a lot more. And these are the ones whose
premarital sex resulted in a pregnancy carried to term, which ignores the huge
percentage who just didn't get pregnant, or who miscarried or had
abortions. Are 90% of these women gentiles? Come on, now!